Shortcoming of The Scientific Community

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

One debate that turns up here at times is the question of whether or not the scientific community currently has enough of the right data to determine that the entity commonly known as Bigfoot is biologically real. This post will attempt to explain one of the most notable shortcomings of the current system as it relates to this issue along with any other similar scientific problem.

 

For scientists to want to draw certain interpretations from a data set, they must first assume that the data that's being worked with is valid to begin with. The common method within the scientific community to determine the validity of information is replication. For instance, in the case of DNA, a sample that leads to a controversial finding is sent to multiple labs for blind testing to confirm that the information being used is valid. 

 

Another working method for determining the accuracy of data is by analyzing the data itself, rather than trying to replicate it. Although this method works, it's not one that's used by the scientific community, as it adds a challenging new element to scientific study that the majority of scientists aren't comfortable dealing with. The fact that it won't look good on paper (to their peers) doesn't help much either.

 

In the of case of cryptids, many people (including scientists) have trouble replicating information for themselves. This is essentially the cause of much of the controversy within cryptozoology. We basically have an incredibly large amount of data that's difficult to use, and isn't being used by the vast majority of scientists, even though they can use it in a sense.

 

 

[FarArcher]

Ontario, the only science that gets done is the science that gets funded.

 

Period.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I forgot to add that the inability to validate data is also a shortcoming of researchers in general, not just people who have a career in science. As far as a lack funding goes, I don't think that's really what's lacking. If teams of researchers were to receive funding to do year-round research, the odds are that "Bigfoot's" status of the existence won't change within acadamia, as they're not able to collect data any more effectively than the top current researchers who are doing it during their free time for non-monetary reasons.

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, FarArcher said:

Ontario, the only science that gets done is the science that gets funded.

 

Period.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160719091725.htm

 

Eight-year-old boy discovers early turtle fossil that solves the mystery of the turtle shell

Turtle shell initially evolved for burrowing, not protection

Date:

July 19, 2016

Source:

University of the Witwatersrand

Summary:

It is common knowledge that the modern turtle shell is largely used for protection. No other living vertebrate has so drastically altered its body to form such an impenetrable protective structure as the turtle. However, a new study on the earliest partially shelled fossil turtles suggests the broad ribbed proto shell was initially an adaptation for burrowing underground.

[FarArcher]

Ontario - I can fund research to support a finding I want - and the scientific group I fund - will provide proof of that finding.  Good, scientific proof.

 

I can fund another research effort to support a finding to the contrary, and the scientific group I fund will likewise find scientific proof to the contrary.  Good, scientific proof.

 

Academia - by definition - learn by rote, and teach by rote.  New ideas can only be incrementally tested.  Or the funding dries up.  Change is painfully slow.

 

I spent four hours on the phone last night with a research doctor who's worked for some of the most well funded, top research facilities in the nation, and he's been published - not once or twice - but twenty five times.

 

And this was a good part of our discussion.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160719091725.htm

 

Eight-year-old boy discovers early turtle fossil that solves the mystery of the turtle shell

Turtle shell initially evolved for burrowing, not protection

Date:

July 19, 2016

Source:

University of the Witwatersrand

Summary:

It is common knowledge that the modern turtle shell is largely used for protection. No other living vertebrate has so drastically altered its body to form such an impenetrable protective structure as the turtle. However, a new study on the earliest partially shelled fossil turtles suggests the broad ribbed proto shell was initially an adaptation for burrowing underground.

 

Evolved from what species previous?  (Please don't tell me you don't know, or can't find it in the fossil record.)  It was your example after all.

[Incorrigible1]

Moving goalposts. I provided what you asked for the first time around.

[FarArcher]

Is your point that a boy - not on the payroll - found a fossil?

 

You're on top of this.  Clearly.  

 

 

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

The boy wasn't on any payroll, as you deem necessary. A significant discovery, by a rank amateur.

 

 

[FarArcher]

You may recall, you had the wrong person, and I'm pressed to recall the few times you were right.

 

So the kid took it to a lab, did an analysis, and came up with this postulation - all on his own?

 

Ask whoever waters you to increase the frequency.

[Incorrigible1]

You may recall, I've not had the wrong person.

 

Oh, did you make a mistake?

[Incorrigible1]

Luv me some Ozark Mountain Daredevils.

 

Chicken train
Runnin' all day
Chicken train
Runnin' all day
Chicken train
Runnin' all day
I can't get on
I can't get off

[FarArcher]

Oh yeah!

 

You remember!

[Incorrigible1]

Slop those chickens, boy.

[FarArcher]

Careful, you're getting all emotional again, and you're such a valuable poster you don't want to say something that will get you another 'vacation.'

 

Back on topic.

 

Ontario, you're absolutely correct that man in academia are very reluctant to pursue in any manner what some would consider an element of cryptozoology.  Or any other fringe topic a researcher would like to do work on, but knowing that the results regardless of the findings - would be frowned on by their peers.

 

Speaking with a physicist/chemist last night, he spoke of this - and the gist of what he lamented was that there are those who work within the framework of either academia and those who do research for firms - and neither will fund such outlier efforts.

 

Leaving it up to individual researchers - who also must pay the bills - leaving little to spend on something that the unknowing say doesn't exist.  

7 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Slop those chickens, boy.

 

I think you 'slop' pigs.

 

You're light is burning bright, tonight.

[Art1972]

4 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

One debate that turns up here at times is the question of whether or not the scientific community currently has enough of the right data to determine that the entity commonly known as Bigfoot is biologically real. (1 BELOW) This post will attempt to explain one of the most notable shortcomings of the current system as it relates to this issue along with any other similar scientific problem.

 

For scientists to want to draw certain interpretations from a data set, they must first assume that the data that's being worked with is valid to begin with. The common method within the scientific community to determine the validity of information is replication. For instance, in the case of DNA, a sample that leads to a controversial finding is sent to multiple labs for blind testing to confirm that the information being used is valid. 

 

Another working method for determining the accuracy of data is by analyzing the data itself, rather than trying to replicate it. Although this method works, it's not one that's used by the scientific community, as it adds a challenging new element to scientific study that the majority of scientists aren't comfortable dealing with. The fact that it won't look good on paper (to their peers) doesn't help much either.

 

In the of case of cryptids, many people (including scientists) have trouble replicating information for themselves. This is essentially the cause of much of the controversy within cryptozoology. We basically have an incredibly large amount of data that's difficult to use, and isn't being used by the vast majority of scientists, even though they can use it in a sense.    (see 2 below)

 

4 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

 

 

 

 

1)  No, they absolutely do not have enough data to determine the existence of, and make a declaration about, the creature we call Bigfoot or Sasquatch.    What data are you talking about anyway?   Aside from anecdotal accounts (like my own), some occasional track lines that show up (some of which are immediately questionable), and too many fantastic claims of possessed bodies, or regular habituation, what oodles and piles of data are these scientists supposed to be sifting through, and analyzing ??   

 

2)  What "incredibly large amount of data" are you referring to?   Databases compiling sightings?   Websites like BFRO compiling anecdotal accounts?   A few sets of plaster cast feet ?   I have no idea what data you're referring to, that you'd like all these prominent scientists to examine and analyze. 

 

You want scientific recognition?   Classification?  Mainstream acceptance of the idea of existence ? 

 

No amount of stories, or suspect hairs, or plaster casts, or photos of footprints in the mud/snow will ever get us there. 

 

Skeletal, or intact remains on a cold steel exam table, is the only thing that will get it done, whether its a result of natural expiring of the animal, or helped along by a hunter, or logging truck, or however else Bigfoot's die.